Michael Schaffrath: For More Diversity in Sports Streaming
Soccer is still the most popular sport on streaming platforms. In order to be able to show important matches, more and more players are considering innovative rights packages. But the logic behind rights allocation and platform strategies also has an impact on the media presence of individual sports. Communication scientist Prof. Dr. Michael Schaffrath reveals in an interview why diversity is essential in sports streaming.
From the arena into the TV: Sports streaming made in Bavaria
Get our new report with trends and expert interviews from the Bavarian sports streaming industry.
Prof. Dr. Schaffrath, how does the allocation of rights in sport currently work – and why is it so strategically relevant?
Prof. Dr. Michael Schaffrath: Sports rights are the central currency in the media business. In soccer in particular – by far the most important sport in Germany – there is a real market with many interested parties: ARD, ZDF, Sky, DAZN, Amazon and many more. The German Football League (DFL) awards highly differentiated rights packages – including rights to broadcast live broadcasts, live conferences and time-shifted summaries. Live is always the most expensive, time-shifted rights are cheaper – but even these remain expensive. In other sports such as handball or athletics, there are often only one or two broadcasters that show any interest at all. The negotiating power is much weaker there. The greater the competition for a sport, the higher the prices – and the smaller the packages.
Hardly any live pictures on free TV for competitions such as the Champions League
Are there legal limits to this?
Schaffrath: Yes, at EU level, member states can define lists of so-called “events of major importance for society”. In Germany, Section 13 of the Interstate Media Treaty stipulates that certain matches – for example, all matches involving the German national team at a soccer World Cup, the opening match, the semi-finals and the final – must be shown on free-to-air television. This regulation is intended to prevent key social events from disappearing behind paywalls. In the case of German participation, the Champions League and Europa League finals must also be shown on free-to-air TV. However, the Bundesliga can be awarded exclusively and shown exclusively on pay TV.
Many premium rights are now behind paywalls. What does this mean for public accessibility?
Schaffrath: There are hardly any live pictures on free TV for competitions like the Champions League. ZDF broadcasts summaries on Wednesdays, but if you want to watch live, you need a subscription to DAZN or Amazon. This shortage is part of the strategy of commercial platforms. For viewers, this means they have to dig deeper and deeper into their pockets.
What consequences does this have for other sports – beyond soccer?
Schaffrath: The concentration of financial resources on soccer has a direct impact on other sports: handball, swimming and table tennis are losing visibility and falling further into the media sidelines. Many people are simply not aware of what is not being shown. Media presence has long since determined what is perceived by society and what is passed on in the long term.
Should public broadcasters continue to seek soccer rights?
Schaffrath: I'm radical: ARD and ZDF should get out of soccer coverage completely and invest their resources in other sports. Their public service mandate also includes media diversity. Of course, they show many sports that would not stand a chance on private platforms. But if you take a closer look at the actual broadcasting times of various fringe sports, you realize how thin the actual TV presence of many disciplines is each year.
If we want diversity in sport, we need a new balance in the allocation of rights. Because the euros that are spent on soccer are not spent on other sports.
Photo: private
Prof. Dr. Michael SchaffrathCommunication scientist
What happens when broadcasters are both rights holders and producers?
Schaffrath: Then there is a clear conflict of objectives. Platforms such as DAZN or Sky invest large sums in broadcasting rights, making it difficult to deal critically with players, coaches or officials in their own reporting. Anyone who pays millions for a product does not want to “break it”, as former ZDF editor Michael Palme once put it. There is often no criticism of commercialization or sporting structures. The journalistic task of pointing out grievances is easily neglected. At the same time, social media increases the pressure: commentators who express criticism are evaluated in real time – this can create a “scissors in the head” and leads to sports journalism that is more entertaining and less controlling. Yet control is essential: sport is a market worth billions with social relevance. One of the normative functions of journalism is to critically scrutinize sport, not just to accompany it.
Sports that do not take place on television lose their social relevance
What responsibility do the media and politicians have for the future of sport on television?
Schaffrath: If we want diversity in sport, we need a new balance in the allocation of rights. Because the euros that are spent on soccer are not spent on other sports. What is not shown on television loses social relevance in the long term. This leaves its mark on children and young people in particular: what is not visible will not be imitated. In the end, it is not only the market that decides what we watch – but also which sport we as a society make and pass on.
